warmetalfandomcom-20200214-history
User blog:Vaxquis/Note to deck creators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation Please notice that when giving probabilities of a certain deck winning in auto mode, giving more than 2 significant digits with a trial of less than 10E6 tries is senseless, as these digits are unreproducable due to PC's RNG spread, and giving more than 2 significant digits with trial of more than 10k tries is senseless, as they are entirely unreproducable in real Tyrant due to obvious reasons (energy limits etc), so they are based on Evaluate Decks RNG/match result approximation routines, giving no data on real deck efficiency. So either do 10m trials and give syntetic percentages, use 100k trials and give RL approximates or go and think about it until it starts to make sense to you. If it's not 100%, it doesn't matter if it's 99,9% or 99,91% to me. The value of "win rate" should either be comparative (to be able to assess decks versus each other) or descriptive (to give the feeling of the deck's strength). I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T specify more than 2 SD, just that doing that with <10M trials is senseless. Please note than in usual cases 1/sqrt(N) is the expected precision of a N pseudo-random sample trial, due to RNG streaks, seeding, error accumulation, algorithm specifics etc.; the growth of the precision is thus log10, not linear. Any trial between 10k and 1m is expected to give 1% precision, 1m and above trial gives about 0.1% precision in case the trial is done properly. Increasing the precision to 0.01% would require to increase the trial to 100m; that's absurdly high effort for the outcome. Values given for high try count trials are in no way descriptive, only comparative. E.g. played with 99,9% deck once and lost. Immediately following that, played with 97% deck and won 15 times in a row. Who's to blame? Besides, do anybody *really* know how Tyrant's server generates RN? If no, how can one predict the results from Evaluate Decks to strictly conform to RL results? That's the difference between synthetic (calculated) and organic (observed) statistical results. Next thing, can anyone surely say that 95,01% deck is stronger than 94,99% deck? How's that observable or relevant to anything? It certainly IS possible to compare card availability and notice that some decks are stronger than others - but saying that 0,01% is a observable difference in deck strength is a heavy overstatement. To be able to notice the difference between 94,99% and 95,01% deck "strength", you'd have to play the combat at least one order of magnitude more times than the inverted difference between them; that makes ca. 5000 mission plays. That's hardcore grinding, and that's exactly the reason grinding decks have to have best % win rates and best testing beforehand. Even then, the difference would be negligible. Passing a regular mission without any trouble requires a ~99% deck for a casual gamer. Please note that the decks should be created and maintained for other gamer's pleasure, not your own amusement with digits. Category:Blog posts